New York Times weighs in on polygamy

[WinterBorn]

Did you stick your head up your ass and discover gold? Then I suggest you pull it out and take a look at the real world.

Polygamous societies always end up systemically treating one gender as a commodity. This results in all sorts of interesting things, including a large supply of youth of the dominant gender that have absolutely no chance of getting married and are thus forced to find another outlet for their sexual frustrations. In other words, dismissing it because woman occasionally are abused in traditional marriage is no different than dismissing slavery because people occasionally get stiffed on their wages.

Only a complete ignoramus asswipe would make that argument.

What polygamous societies are you basing your argument on? Tribal customs from Uganda? There are no modern polygamous societies that would be the equivalent of the US.

I am betting you are against the redistribution of wealth. So how is it you believe that the gov't should be involved in limiting people to one spouse so that everyone gets one?

And I guess you and I have different opinions of "occasional". Is 1 in 4 women experiencing abuse an "occasional" thing? It is rampant in our society. How about we attack THAT instead of trying to claim that 3 people (or more) who are in love and want to commit to a life together is somehow wrong?

Go read some history.

Reading history will not dispute my statement of "There are no modern polygamous societies that would be the equivalent of the US.".

 

[JimBowie1958]

What polygamous societies are you basing your argument on? Tribal customs from Uganda? There are no modern polygamous societies that would be the equivalent of the US.

I am betting you are against the redistribution of wealth. So how is it you believe that the gov't should be involved in limiting people to one spouse so that everyone gets one?

And I guess you and I have different opinions of "occasional". Is 1 in 4 women experiencing abuse an "occasional" thing? It is rampant in our society. How about we attack THAT instead of trying to claim that 3 people (or more) who are in love and want to commit to a life together is somehow wrong?

Go read some history.

Reading history will not dispute my statement of "There are no modern polygamous societies that would be the equivalent of the US.".

So where is the control group; what societies of any kind are the equivalent of the US?

 

[WinterBorn]

Go read some history.

Reading history will not dispute my statement of "There are no modern polygamous societies that would be the equivalent of the US.".

So where is the control group; what societies of any kind are the equivalent of the US?

Good question.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Reading history will not dispute my statement of "There are no modern polygamous societies that would be the equivalent of the US.".

So where is the control group; what societies of any kind are the equivalent of the US?

Good question.

Lol, well you made the original assertion; is it meaningless?

 

[WinterBorn]

So where is the control group; what societies of any kind are the equivalent of the US?

Good question.

Lol, well you made the original assertion; is it meaningless?

Not at all. But I made the assertion to counter the argument that polygamous societies have always subjugated women. Since there has been no society that is the equivalent of the USA, historical references are largely meaningless.

After all, looking at history you can find plenty of examples of the subjugation of women.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Good question.

Lol, well you made the original assertion; is it meaningless?

Not at all. But I made the assertion to counter the argument that polygamous societies have always subjugated women. Since there has been no society that is the equivalent of the USA, historical references are largely meaningless.

After all, looking at history you can find plenty of examples of the subjugation of women.

OK, so ignore the question of 'is there any like the US?'

How about 'Is there a successful polygamous society in the modern age (post 1500) that did not subjugate women?

There was a time when the women's rights movement was all after polygamy and prostitution, saying that these practices undermined women's place in society.

Is all that so yesterday now that we have...what, smart phones and internet?

 

[WinterBorn]

Lol, well you made the original assertion; is it meaningless?

Not at all. But I made the assertion to counter the argument that polygamous societies have always subjugated women. Since there has been no society that is the equivalent of the USA, historical references are largely meaningless.

After all, looking at history you can find plenty of examples of the subjugation of women.

OK, so ignore the question of 'is there any like the US?'

How about 'Is there a successful polygamous society in the modern age (post 1500) that did not subjugate women?

There was a time when the women's rights movement was all after polygamy and prostitution, saying that these practices undermined women's place in society.

Is all that so yesterday now that we have...what, smart phones and internet?

The key to subjugating women is having women who will accept that as their place in society.

Once they are equals, it is nearly impossible to put them back in a position of subjugation.

I have not been talking about arranged marriages. I have been talking about marriages between consenting adults who know the score. Everyone involved knows who is involved.

I fail to see why the gov't would not recognize these marriages.

 

[editec]

The SLIPPERY SLOPE argument is nearly always rhetorical nonsense.

But it cam be used in BOTH directions/

IF we fail to allow same sex marriages then the next step on that slippery slope is not allowing marriages of people of different ages, races. , cultures etc etc etc.

The slipper slope argument is always a false argument EXCEPT in the case of people walking on SLIPPERY SLOPES.

duh!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not at all. But I made the assertion to counter the argument that polygamous societies have always subjugated women. Since there has been no society that is the equivalent of the USA, historical references are largely meaningless.

After all, looking at history you can find plenty of examples of the subjugation of women.

OK, so ignore the question of 'is there any like the US?'

How about 'Is there a successful polygamous society in the modern age (post 1500) that did not subjugate women?

There was a time when the women's rights movement was all after polygamy and prostitution, saying that these practices undermined women's place in society.

Is all that so yesterday now that we have...what, smart phones and internet?

The key to subjugating women is having women who will accept that as their place in society.

Once they are equals, it is nearly impossible to put them back in a position of subjugation.

I have not been talking about arranged marriages. I have been talking about marriages between consenting adults who know the score. Everyone involved knows who is involved.

I fail to see why the gov't would not recognize these marriages.

1. I think the government should just butt out....

2. I think there are ways of getting people to subjugate themselves by building an environment around them that makes them think it is in their own best interest to be subjugated. It never has to be overt.

The sad truth is we are all being subjugated by the international corporations and their Wall Street bankster allies. They have been siphoning off $85 billion each month, diluting the money the rest of us have, and no one does a damned thing about it.

Now THAT is subjugation and most of us do not even realize it.

 

[Peterf]

In a bid to reinforce my claim to be more PC than anyone else in USMB I state that I am in favour of polygamous marriage but ONLY FOR GAYS.

 

[WinterBorn]

OK, so ignore the question of 'is there any like the US?'

How about 'Is there a successful polygamous society in the modern age (post 1500) that did not subjugate women?

There was a time when the women's rights movement was all after polygamy and prostitution, saying that these practices undermined women's place in society.

Is all that so yesterday now that we have...what, smart phones and internet?

The key to subjugating women is having women who will accept that as their place in society.

Once they are equals, it is nearly impossible to put them back in a position of subjugation.

I have not been talking about arranged marriages. I have been talking about marriages between consenting adults who know the score. Everyone involved knows who is involved.

I fail to see why the gov't would not recognize these marriages.

1. I think the government should just butt out....

2. I think there are ways of getting people to subjugate themselves by building an environment around them that makes them think it is in their own best interest to be subjugated. It never has to be overt.

The sad truth is we are all being subjugated by the international corporations and their Wall Street bankster allies. They have been siphoning off $85 billion each month, diluting the money the rest of us have, and no one does a damned thing about it.

Now THAT is subjugation and most of us do not even realize it.

I agree that the gov't should not be in the marriage business at all.

But if it is going to be, it needs to do so equally and fairly.

The kind of subjugation I am talking about is more difficult to get women back to. The idea that they are second-class citizens and need a man to make their life work, is a concept that falls apart pretty quickly.

 

[rightwinger]

If legalized, polygamy would be a tiny percentage of marriages

Who really cares? They are consenting adults, leave them alone

 

[WinterBorn]

If legalized, polygamy would be a tiny percentage of marriages

Who really cares? They are consenting adults, leave them alone

Thank you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The SLIPPERY SLOPE argument is nearly always rhetorical nonsense.

But it cam be used in BOTH directions/

IF we fail to allow same sex marriages then the next step on that slippery slope is not allowing marriages of people of different ages, races. , cultures etc etc etc.

The slipper slope argument is always a false argument EXCEPT in the case of people walking on SLIPPERY SLOPES.

duh!

Hohum, the slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if no driving cause is given.

Example, if I say that loaning more money to a drunk to get booze is a moral hazard because he will simply buy more booze, get more drunk and need more money, it is in the form of a slippery slope argument. But it WORKS because there is a driving mechanism, the alcoholism.

But if I said don't lend money to Fred because he didn't pay me back last year and he wont pay you back either and that debt means more likelihood of default on loans, etc, that is a false slippery slope and a few other fallacies as well.

Whether there is a driving mechanism is the key and in the case of the consummate nature of inurement to sexual satisfaction achieved by strong sensational and/or debasing behavior has such a mechanism, as inurement causes a person to crave ever stronger and more debasing experiences.

In regard to this case, the loosening of standards, it is something anyone with much experience in the real world can experience themselves. once standards start to slide, whatever the causes of them to start, they do tend to continue that momentum unless some outside factor acts to stop it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If legalized, polygamy would be a tiny percentage of marriages

Who really cares? They are consenting adults, leave them alone

Thank you.

Lol, yes, because no two people would ever agree to do anything that might harm the public good, right?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The key to subjugating women is having women who will accept that as their place in society.

Once they are equals, it is nearly impossible to put them back in a position of subjugation.

I have not been talking about arranged marriages. I have been talking about marriages between consenting adults who know the score. Everyone involved knows who is involved.

I fail to see why the gov't would not recognize these marriages.

1. I think the government should just butt out....

2. I think there are ways of getting people to subjugate themselves by building an environment around them that makes them think it is in their own best interest to be subjugated. It never has to be overt.

The sad truth is we are all being subjugated by the international corporations and their Wall Street bankster allies. They have been siphoning off $85 billion each month, diluting the money the rest of us have, and no one does a damned thing about it.

Now THAT is subjugation and most of us do not even realize it.

I agree that the gov't should not be in the marriage business at all.

But if it is going to be, it needs to do so equally and fairly.

The kind of subjugation I am talking about is more difficult to get women back to. The idea that they are second-class citizens and need a man to make their life work, is a concept that falls apart pretty quickly.

Meh, I think it fad and not a permanent change. The demographics of the change work against it remaining long run.

 

[WinterBorn]

The SLIPPERY SLOPE argument is nearly always rhetorical nonsense.

But it cam be used in BOTH directions/

IF we fail to allow same sex marriages then the next step on that slippery slope is not allowing marriages of people of different ages, races. , cultures etc etc etc.

The slipper slope argument is always a false argument EXCEPT in the case of people walking on SLIPPERY SLOPES.

duh!

Hohum, the slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if no driving cause is given.

Example, if I say that loaning more money to a drunk to get booze is a moral hazard because he will simply buy more booze, get more drunk and need more money, it is in the form of a slippery slope argument. But it WORKS because there is a driving mechanism, the alcoholism.

But if I said don't lend money to Fred because he didn't pay me back last year and he wont pay you back either and that debt means more likelihood of default on loans, etc, that is a false slippery slope and a few other fallacies as well.

Whether there is a driving mechanism is the key and in the case of the consummate nature of inurement to sexual satisfaction achieved by strong sensational and/or debasing behavior has such a mechanism, as inurement causes a person to crave ever stronger and more debasing experiences.

In regard to this case, the loosening of standards, it is something anyone with much experience in the real world can experience themselves. once standards start to slide, whatever the causes of them to start, they do tend to continue that momentum unless some outside factor acts to stop it.

The simple answer is to maintain the standards of "Consenting Adults". That removes the 'threat' of pedophilia and bestiality becoming legal.

 

[WinterBorn]

If legalized, polygamy would be a tiny percentage of marriages

Who really cares? They are consenting adults, leave them alone

Thank you.

Lol, yes, because no two people would ever agree to do anything that might harm the public good, right?

So we restrict the freedoms of all before they do anything that might harm the public good?

 

[longknife]

I think all historians will tell you that polygamy existed in almost every civilization at one time or another.

It generally develops when men with wealth and power take more wives, not just to satisfy their lusts and desires for heirs but to increase the efficiency of their households.

And yes, there are historical examples of incest. Some European tribes believed that the father had the right to take his daughter's virginity before her marriage. There was also something I can't think the name of where feudal lords had the right to bed a virgin on the night of her marriage.

There are also some rare examples of matriarchal societies where a powerful woman had several husbands.

All in one's viewpoint.

Scientifically, incest is bad because it creates inbreeding which leads to genetically passed failings in the human body.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you.

Lol, yes, because no two people would ever agree to do anything that might harm the public good, right?

So we restrict the freedoms of all before they do anything that might harm the public good?

Lol, yes, if we are smart.

But there are many ways of restricting that freedom, hard caps, soft caps, incentives, etc.

Many ways to skin a cat.